Discovery Institute Praises James Tour

You remember James Tour, the creationist organic chemist we’ve written about a few times before. He’s a signer of the Discovery Institute’s Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Our last post about him was only a month ago: James Tour at the Jack Chick Website.

Today, Jimmy Tour is being honored again by the Discovery Institute. They just posted James Tour and the Challenge to Theistic Evolution from Synthetic Chemistry at their creationist blog. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis.

On a new ID the Future podcast, Sarah Chaffee talks with biologist Ann Gauger about the new Theistic Evolution critique. [Link omitted.]

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] A podcast! And it features two outstanding Discoveroids — Sarah Chaffee (whom we call Savvy Sarah) and Ann Gauger (a/k/a Annie Green Screen). Klinghoffer says:

After reviewing some of the contents of this intellectual feast [Hee hee!], they focus on the chapter by Rice University synthetic chemist James Tour, “Are Present Proposals on Chemical Evolutionary Mechanisms Accurately Pointing Toward First Life?” His answer is an emphatic no.

Here’s an Amazon link to that book where Tour’s chapter appears: Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. It’s published by Crossway. Their website says:

The purpose of Crossway has been, from its founding as a not-for-profit ministry in 1938, to publish gospel-centered, Bible-centered content that will honor our Savior and serve his Church. We seek to help people understand the massive implications of the gospel and the truth of God’s Word, for all of life, for all eternity, and for the glory of God.

Wowie — according to what Jimmy Tour says in that book, it’s impossible for “evolutionary mechanisms” to result in life! After that stunning revelation, Klinghoffer tells us:

The bottom line is that a chemist like Tour, a very distinguished one, knows from a career’s worth of lab work how painstakingly difficult it is to synthesize molecules you want — that is, in a modern lab designed (intelligently designed) for such a purpose.

Yes — oh yes! — if it hasn’t yet been done in the lab, then it can’t be done, and that proves Oogity Boogity! Klinghoffer continues:

Origin-of-life scenarios can’t, obviously, summon a laboratory and a team of top chemists at the dawn of life’s history and must therefore, if they refuse to consider ID [the Discoveroids “theory” of intelligent design], picture as possible things occurring in the wild that are difficult to accomplish with all the expertise and equipment available to Dr. Tour and his colleagues.

You gotta be an idiot if you “refuse to consider ID.” Here’s the end of Klinghoffer’s brief post:

Only design can overcome that challenge. Yet TE [theistic evolution] proponents won’t consider it. That’s one of a variety of scientific and philosophical problems covered in this comprehensive yet accessible book.

Well, dear reader, with so many brilliant creationists praising and promoting Jimmy Tour, how can you afford to ignore him?

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Discovery Institute Praises James Tour

  1. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    I always loved that argument.

    If you can’t intelligently design it, it must be intelligently designed.

    Genius.

  2. I wonder, is James tour a fully synthetic chemist or does he contain organic material too?

  3. Michael Fugate

    J.P. Moreland BIOLA philosopher shows up in these titles frequently.
    http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/jp_moreland/
    His contribution to the book:
    “How Theistic Evolution Kicks Christianity Out of the Plausibility Structure and Robs Christians of Confidence that the Bible is a Source of Knowledge”
    Sure to be enlightening.

    Just so you know where ID is coming from and it is purely theological.
    This is Moreland from the introduction of Three Views on Creation and Evolution advocating for his god as a scientific hypothesis:
    Advocates [this is what the DI wants] of theistic science hold to these beliefs:
    1. God, conceived of as a personal, transcendent agent of great power and intelligence, has through direct, immediate, primary agency and indirect, mediate, secondary causation created and designed the world for a purpose and has directly acted through immediate, primary agency in the course of its development at various times, including prehistory (i.e. history prior to the arrival of human beings).
    2. The commitment expressed in proposition #1 above can appropriately enter into the very fabric of the practice of science and the utilization of scientific methodology.
    3. One way this commitment can appropriately enter into the practice of science is through various uses in scientific methodology of gaps in the natural world that are essential features of direct, immediate, primary divine agency properly understood. When God acts as a primary cause, a gap will be present in the natural world because the effect of his action is a result of his direct causal power and not the result of his guidance of natural processes alone.

  4. @Rikki_Tikki_Taalik
    You beat me to it!
    Thanks!

  5. Give it to Klinkleclapper – here we have all three core elements of creacrap combined in their full glory. Praise the Grand Old Designer!

    “an emphatic no.”
    1. Evolution Theory is wrong: check.

    “painstakingly difficult”
    2. God of the gaps: check.

    “in a modern lab designed (intelligently designed) for such a purpose”
    3. Paley’s False Watchmaker Analogy: check.

    Indeed, creacrap science at it’s very, very best. No doubt the product of the two outstanding IDiots Savvy Sarah and Annie Green Screen, popularized by the one and only Klinkleclapper.

  6. So it’s yet another creationism book being pushed by the IDiots.

  7. Mark Germano

    How long until Klinghoffer writes a post about biomimicry and its implications for ID? Because when someone is inspired by nature to design a useful item, that, too proves intelligent design.

    It’ll happen by the end of the year, I’m sure.

  8. Draken wonders, “…is James tour a fully synthetic chemist or does he contain organic material too?”

    LOL! Probably fully synthetic. Isn’t his daughter Polythene Pam?

  9. Origin-of-life scenarios can’t, obviously, summon a laboratory and a team of top chemists at the dawn of life’s history and must therefore, if they refuse to consider ID [the Discoveroids “theory” of intelligent design], picture as possible things occurring in the wild that are difficult to accomplish with all the expertise and equipment available to Dr. Tour and his colleagues.

    Well, apart from what that might say about Dr. Tour’s scientific competence, he doesn’t have millions of years in which to work.

    Only design can overcome that challenge. Yet TE [theistic evolution] proponents won’t consider it. That’s one of a variety of scientific and philosophical problems covered in this comprehensive yet accessible book.

    Nice promotional blurb; garbage argument. “Only design can overcome that challenge” is a statement of faith, not of fact. But then, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding, ID proponents are all about faith.